Scientists Are Dumb

What do elite scientists know about religion?

Not much, according to sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund.  Asking these out-of-touch elite scientists for advice about religion is akin to asking residents of a nudist colony for advice about fashion.

If anyone would know, it would be Ecklund.  In her study of scientists, between 2005 and 2008, she surveyed 1700 scientists from what she called “elite” schools (157-158).  She announced her goal in her 2010 book Science vs. Religion: to give voice to “the scientists whose voices have been thus far overlooked in the science-and-religion debates” (x).

To this reader, Ecklund seems to have made a strange decision to include social scientists—economists, political scientists—in her sample.  It seems a better fit to call her sample elite “academics” instead of elite “scientists.”  Other reviewers have pointed out different complaints.

But whatever the merits or faults of the study as a whole, it tells us something about the connection between some elite academics and the rest of America.  As Ecklund describes, the religious affiliation of her sample does not match that of Americans as a whole.  Among her sample, only two percent identified as “evangelical Protestant,” compared to twenty-eight percent among the general population.  Only two tenths percent as “Black Protestant,” compared to the general public’s eight percent.  Nine percent identified as Catholic, compared to twenty-seven percent of the public.  Sixteen percent were Jewish, compared to the general population’s two percent.  Perhaps most interesting, given recent attention to the rise of the “nones,” a full fifty-three percent of Ecklund’s sample claimed no religious affiliation, compared to sixteen percent of the rest of us. (15).

The same trend was true when it came to professing atheism or agnosticism.  In Ecklund’s sample, just over one-third called themselves atheists, compared to a mere two percent of the American population.  Thirty percent called themselves agnostic, compared to the general four percent.  And a relatively meager nine percent agreed with the statement “I have no doubts about God’s existence,” compared to a whopping sixty-three percent of the general public (16).

These elite academics, then, certainly do not match the rest of America in religious ideas or identity.  That really doesn’t come as much of a surprise.  But Ecklund argues more provocatively that this religious quirkiness among elite academics also creates a sort of self-perpetuating echo chamber.  It creates what Ecklund calls three “myths scientists believe” (152).

First, Ecklund charges, elite academics tend to think that if they ignore religion, it will go away.  Second, they too often equate all religion with an imagined bogeyman of “fundamentalism” (153).  And elite academics tend to think that “All evangelical Christians are against science” (155).

The utter lack of evidence for all these myths does not stop elite academics from feeling correct, even intellectually superior to those who question their blundering assumptions.  As Ecklund argues, non-religious academics often have little idea even about the working of religion on their own elite campuses, “much less about what drives a typical American worshipper” (8).

Ecklund depicts an environment on some elite college campuses that encourages, or at least allows, growths of strange ideological excess.  One physicist she interviewed—admittedly one extreme end of Ecklund’s sample—described religion as a “virus” to which he is “immune” (13).

Most of her interviewees did not express such virulent hostility, but many of the traditionally religious folk still expressed a felt need to live a “closeted faith” (43).  Even when they had some religious colleagues, these elite academics often felt surrounded by angry anti-religion.  One self-identified “Christian” academic told Ecklund about a conversation with a colleague about their students’ poor academic preparation.  The fault, this Christian was told, was with “stupid intelligent design.  It’s stupid Christianity” (45).  Her colleague had not meant to offend, but had simply assumed that such comments could not be considered offensive.

In this self-reinforcing world of arrogant ignorance, many of the academics in Ecklund’s study made strange and unwarranted assumptions.  One biologist, for example, assumed that “mature” students would not consider creationism.  Advanced students, this biologist explained, “are just not religious in the first place.”  But this biologist, Ecklund points out, really had no idea about the religious ideas or backgrounds of his students (78).

Even on their own campuses, most of Ecklund’s sample reported woeful ignorance of attempts to promote dialogue between science and religion.  “The reality of university life,” Ecklund argued, “does not match these scientists’ ideal” (98).

Yet this ignorance among elite academics did not create a questioning or humble attitude.  One social scientist, for instance, explained how she began her classes.  “You don’t have to distance yourself from religion,” she told her new students, “and think about it from an outside perspective, but you do if you want to succeed in this class.  And if you don’t want to do that, then you need to leave” (84).

How can such smart people say such dumb things?  How can elite academics profess such blinkered ideas without even recognizing their own biases?  As a product of two of the “elite” schools in Ecklund’s sample (Washington University in St. Louis and University of Wisconsin—Madison), I can attest to the fact that the environments in such places can lead to a perception of a single, right, “progressive” orthodoxy.  But even academics should be allowed their own opinions, right?  Even if they are grossly out of line with popular notions?

The real question, to my way of thinking, is this: How can people who have purportedly dedicated their professional lives to increasing their knowledge allow themselves such lamentable ignorance when it comes to religion?

Advertisements
Leave a comment

8 Comments

  1. Throughout my experien ce I’ve found exposure to other points of view have generally altered my understanding them. If academia is as isolated from religion as this study suggests, it would explain why they have such incorrect views about it. They simply aren’t exposed to it in their daily lives.

    This isn’t necasssarily a bad thing. I doubt the results of drug trials, for example, will be altered by someone having misconceptions about religion. Nonetheless, when people who have to deal with the subject in the real world – such as lecturers – have these misconceptions there is clearly a problem.

    In much the same way most academics probably won’t think there is a bias against women in STEM fields – when there is – I doubt many will think that their ignorance of religion is necassarily a problem. But it probably is. I think simple steps can be taken to rectify these issues; in much the same way simple steps can help eliminate a lot of the bias against women. It’s up to responsible academics to help implement these steps, and at the very least ensure up and coming researchers are aware of these problems and so can help sort them out in subsequent generations.

    As a (soon to be) Bsc graduate hoping to go into academia, this is certainly a problem I wasn’t aware of. Now you’ve enlightened me, I hope to fix it where I can.

    Reply
  2. Is it really lamentable knowledge when it comes to religion?

    If religion is neither connected to their field, nor connected to reality, what would the point be in furthering their knowledge of it?

    In the social studies class above how acceptable should a dissertation on the social ills of leprechauns be?

    Science is the study of the apparent reality about us, religions are sets of (usually ancient) superstitious beliefs that make little reference to this reality (and mostly seem opposed by it). What sort of dialogue does religion want?

    I don’t get it.

    Reply
  3. I don’t think “scientists are dumb” is a fair conclusion, since the critique here seems to be against atheism, and atheists actually tend to know more about religion than believers. You can argue that these academics [I consider the use of “elite” to be emotionally charged language here] are insensitive, maybe, but why is it wrong to be ignorant of attempts to promote dialogue between science and religion if that’s just not something you are interested in? That’s like calling the Christians I know “dumb” because they think all Muslims are extremists and are unaware of any efforts to promote dialogue between Christianity and Islam. This is true, but it doesn’t make them dumb or evil or whatever else this article is trying to insinuate about atheists.

    And we all know that if you allow a religious argument to start in a science class you are never going to get around to teaching science. I don’t see how the statement that students who are unable to view their own religion from an impartial perspective will not succeed in that class is offensive. In order to do social science, you have to be able to do science, and if you are arguing that your religion is righter than the facts you are not able to do science. Isn’t that what the prof was saying?

    Reply
  4. There does seem to be a special animosity between academic scientists and religion. However, there is an unfortunate tendency of all academics to assume that their expertise in their specialized discipline is readily transferrable to virtually every other domain. One of the most glaring examples of this to me is academics’ views on pedagogy, or more particularly on their views of evidence based teaching techniques. No matter how careful the study or how strong the evidence for a better way of helping students learn, scientists will almost inevitably reject any suggestions to change the way they teach, offering any number of reasons why “that would never work in my classroom with my students.” One colleague of mine did this at a lunch seminar on improved teaching after having told his students not an hour before that science was superior to all other forms of knowledge because it corrected itself in the face of new evidence!

    Reply
  1. I Know Who Will Win the Super Bowl | I Love You but You're Going to Hell
  2. Americans Know that We Don’t Know about Evolution | I Love You but You're Going to Hell
  3. Confronting the Myth of Leftist College Students | I Love You but You're Going to Hell
  4. What’s the Most Christian College? | I Love You but You're Going to Hell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s